Still Not the Anarchists Cookbook

  A friend of mine has written something brilliant, and this brilliance grew out of an ongoing email discussion that we were having about government and its relationship to the Christian.   Now I feel I have to do some explaining to the readers who weren’t privy to the discussion, and also to do justice to his remarks.  This friend is genuinely one of the most thoughtful guys I know, and I’m not just saying this because he reads my blog. Even when we disagree, he makes me think, and what more could you ask?

  Although I do consider myself a libertarian, he does not. He wrote extensively on what he feels is a huge flaw in libertarian philosophy, and made some excellent points. He has been, in the past, highly critical of some people who espouse a philosophy of liberty but practice a philosophy of rebellion, and it’s an important distinction to draw since it is after all a condition of the heart.  His take on most libertarians is that they say what they say not necessarily because they want liberty, but rather out of resentment towards any sort of authority (2 Pet 2:19, 2 Pet 2:10).  I think that’s a valid observation, although it’s painting with a broad brush since any label you could pick  would cover a lot of people who may not even agree with each other.  But let me throw in my two cents, and we’ll see what happens.  I apologize in advance if I am just hitting the high points of my overall thoughts on this, but I’m trying to cover a lot of ground here.

  The source of all liberty is God (Luke 4:18, 2 Cor 3:17).  The source of all authority is also God (1 Pet 3:22, Dan 3:28, Col 1:16).  I believe in ‘natural rights’ although I’ve always found the term a little odd, because my rights are not derived from rocks and trees and rivers and streams, they come from God.  They didn’t  pop into existence in 1776.  I have the right to property defined as assets that are specifically mine and God weighs in with a commandment of “Thou shalt not steal”. I have a right to life, and God   confirms this with a commandment “Thou shalt not kill”.  God couples these rights with accountability to him as to how I use them.   After all, I wasn’t given eyes so that I could look at other men’s wives; I was given eyes so that I could perceive and marvel at his creation.   I wasn’t given a voice so that I could gossip, I was given a voice to praise him with. Since they are my eyes and my voice, I can use them either way, but I will give an account either way (Gal 5:13).  

  In the meantime, he institutes governing authorities in my life and over my life.  These range from my parents when I was a kid to my pastor to the local government to the court system to the federal government.  Some people are born to better parents than others just as some are born under governments that allow more freedom than others.  Some of these   authorities are temporary, like my parents.  Some of these authorities can be changed, like my pastor.  Some require tremendous changes, like expatriation.  But the fact is, somebody is always going to be in charge of you, to one   degree or another, and this is God’s will.

  When a people turn their back on God, generally speaking , they lose liberty (Prov 29:2). This is merely God withdrawing his favor from a people who do not want him.  People get the government that reflects their willingness to serve God.  .  He does this in a variety of ways.  Sometimes he allows corrupt people to seize the reins of power. Sometimes he allows an invading army to come in.  All of these reductions in practical liberty are a result of God’s judgment on people who have misused their initial liberty.  My favorite Biblical example is the Babylonian captivity, in which the children of Israel were rewarded for their idolatry by having a barbarian horde drag their children off in chains.  This judgment went on for 70 years, and people saw their children, and grand children and great grandchildren grow up surrounded by idolatry because they had loved their idols so much. They had misused their liberty, so God took it away.  But it would be incorrect to cite this as an example that God is against liberty.  God is for both liberty, and authority, as they both work hand in hand in a people whose heart is after God.

 If all that’s true, and I believe that it is, , then the real issue isn’t what Obama is going to do. The real issue is what are you going to do. If you are really in favor of liberty, then you have an obligation to live right, and obey the whole counsel of God, not just the parts you like or the parts line up with your philosophy (Psalm 119:45).  The strong  (and frankly mystifying) anti-God streak present in a lot of libertarian circles is the Achilles heel of the modern liberty movement, and it is quite likely the reason why  we have not seen the sort of success God gave to the colonial Americans in re-establishing liberty.

  So what, as a Christian, should be my position towards the authority God has put over my life?  Should I be shouting for its overthrow?  Should I be instigating violence against it?  Should I browbeat and belittle it at every opportunity?  Scripture is pretty clear on this.  I am supposed to live the best life possible under my current situation, with the idea in sight that I will give account to God as to how I lived and fared under an oppressive corrupt system ( Eph 6:1-10).  If I am in a position of authority, I should strive to be just. (2 Sam 23:3, Heb 13:17).  I should police my own life to ensure that I am not the part of the reason for God’s favor turning from us.  I should pray for the authority over me, not send out mocking emails (Jude 1:8).  In those prayers, I don’t ask for their death, but rather that God will turn their hearts (Matt 5:44, Prov 21:1).  In the meantime, I should try my best to live out the commandments of God as much as I can, and live under these temporary circumstances in light of an eternal reality.  And for the record, I’m not particularly good at anything I just listed. I probably have a lot more rebellion in my heart than I realize.

  Now I currently live under a system where I still have some  ability to at least make my disagreement known.  I have the right, under this authority, to protest policy. I have the right to call my Congressman, to vote, to make my voice heard.  It is legitmate to point out when those in authority overstep their  authority, but I don’t have the right, as a Christian, to rise up against what God has put over me (Titus 3:1).  I am not required to be a yes-man or a lapdog to corrupt men, but I must be very careful as a Christian to not step over from disagreement into rebellion.  I could go a bit further into where I think that line is, but that’s a topic for another time.

   I also have friends  who are  'anarchists' and 'stateless libertarians'  and 'anarchocaps' and all sorts of other interesting labels. I encourage them to  look up the verses, and by all means join the discusion.

The New Pediatrician

  For those of  you who have been following all this, all I can say is 'so far so good'.  There has been no negative fallout on the real-world side from our departure from our pediatrician.  There have been no  visits from government workers, no inquiring phone calls. When the story went viral we got lots of interesting emails from people who  were supportive, and a handful of emails from  critical people.  Some people  encouraged me to  look outside of mainstream medicine.  To those people, let me say that I agree with you, for the most part, and  our doctor visits are rare. Some people   predicted death and suffering for my family. I managed to ignore those people.
  But as the hoopla died down, I was tasked with finding a new family doctor that would  meet our needs, not violate our convictions, and  that made my wife comfortable. Not exactly an easy task.
  I started working the yellow pages, and amassed a  short list of potential candidates. Some of them  weren't taking new patients,  at least 2 were getting ready to retire, and maybe  4 or 5  had been absorbed into the local South Georgia Healthcare Borg compound.  This meant, in the short term, that they had no receptionist, just a maddening phone tree with no human beings in sight.  Long term, it meant all their office policies were dictated by corporate bean-counters, which didn't bode well.  My list was getting shorter and shorter and I hadn't even  had a chance to  ask the Big Question; the vax question.
  Finally I found an office  just a few miles north of us, actually in our town, and a human being  answered the phone.  She said that yes, they were accepting new patients. Now came the moment. I had tried to figure out how to phrase this question so that I was clear, but not so clear that someone felt the need to call the authorities on me.  I said " Do you have an office policy regarding vaccinations?"  There was a pause, and she said "I'm not sure I  understand what you mean."
  So much for subtle. I said "I want the choice to decide which vaccinations my children will or will not take.  Does your office honor those choices?" Another pause and she said " Why wouldn't we?".
  Hmmm, good question. "Well, ma'am, some people won't see your family unless all the government mandated shots are given." She made a sound  that sounded like genuine surprise and said "Well we don't do that, and we wouldn't do that. Now we will notate that you declined the shots, but goodness, no, why would we force you to get shots?"
  I ran up to the office which is  literally 4 miles from my front door, and gathered up the necessary paperwork for 6 new patients.  The office  is a bright, cheery place and the receptionists don't hide behind frosted glass, which has always been a pet peeve of mine. All seems to be well. I guess time will tell, but it looks like we're back in business.

We Need a New Pediatrician

  We need a new pediatrician.

  The reason we need a new pediatrician is rather involved.  A while back, the pediatrician that our family has frequented for years came out with what was, in my opinion, a rather draconian and insulting policy regarding immunizations. The policy was simple; you will take the shots the CDC recommends, or we will not treat you.   The written policy went on to refer to the unimmunized as ‘selfish’.  Their policy is reproduced here.  When I read the policy I was incensed, and it lead to a number of family discussions. My wife wanted to stay with the doctor, and I did not.  My compromise was that we would stay with his office until we were forced to leave by this issue.

  Fast forward a few weeks and their office calls to tell me that my oldest needs to come in for his 11 year physical. I had never heard of such a thing, and the person on the phone was just a message service with no insight into such things.  I wanted to know what was driving this physical. My kids aren’t in government schools so I couldn’t imagine any reason that   pre-6^th grade physical would be required. My wife called their office a time or two on my behalf and got no answer that would satisfy me.

  On the day of the appointment my wife called from the doctor’s office and told me that   part of the 11 year checkup was a series of immunizations.  One of the  immunizations was for HPV( Human papillomavirus vaccine), It's ’recommended’ by Big Pharma for both girls and boys to prevent genital warts and certain types of cancer. We had already declined this for my daughter before the new policy came out.  One of the shots was a Tdap booster (Tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis) booster.  The last on the list was the Meningococcal vaccine which supposedly prevents meningitis. She read them off to me and I made a command decision.   She was to instruct the doctor that my son would receive a tetanus booster and that was it. I hung up the phone and waited. I felt in my gut that this was going to be a day of confrontation.

  A few minutes later the phone rang and my wife told me that the pediatrician wanted to speak to me. His first question was whether or not I had actually done any research before I decided to risk my child’s health. I told him I didn’t think the risk was that high, and that injecting foreign substances into my child’s body wasn’t my idea of health care. He warned me of all the meningitis outbreaks that still happen in America and told me that I was putting my child in grave danger. He said, and I quote, “If he catches it, I don’t want to have to stand there in ICU and watch him die because he didn’t get this shot.”  Keeping in mind that meningitis is treatable with penicillin and that death from it usually only happens in a previously compromised immune system, the message was clear; take the shot or death may happen.

  I continued to decline the shots, and he asked me if I was aware of their office policy.  I told him I was and that I found their   low regard for parental choice very troubling. By now we’re both yelling at each other, which wasn’t the best way to handle it. He asked me if I understood that he could no longer treat our family unless we got these shots.  I made some comment about how much money his office makes off of immunizations. He told me he didn’t have time to argue with me, that we were done here.  He handed the phone back to my wife. I instructed her (still in a fairly harsh tone of voice unfortunately) to pack up our son and come home.

  Once I was off the phone, he began to work on my wife.  He apologized for getting so upset on the phone with me, and he wanted to give us some time to ‘think about’ it before we severed the doctor-patient relationship. He gave my wife the party line on vaccines in general, and somehow my upcoming mission trip to Haiti came up.  The idea was floated out there that I could bring back some plague from Haiti and infect our unvaxed kids.  Before she left, my wife had to sign a ‘Refusal to Vaccinate’ form that they would keep on file.  They also informed my wife that she would not be able to get our children’s medical records. Their policy is to release those records to our next doctor, not to us.

  A week went by and I was still trying to locate a doctor that honored our choices as parents when we received a letter in the mail officially severing the doctor-patient services unless we ‘comply’. Included was a revised version of their policy in which the word ‘selfish’ is replaced with a reference to ‘herd immunity’.

  My issue is simple; it’s my child, not theirs.  Maybe vaccines are good, maybe they’re bad. Maybe Wakefield was right and they attribute to allergies and autism, maybe they don’t.  Either way, I as a parent ought to be able to pick and choose what shots are given to my child, not the CDC.  In the pediatricians defense, they are a private practice and can do as they see fit, but I think it’s poor policy and a poor business decision to sever years of customer relations over the recommendations of Big Pharma and their lackeys in the government. I think it’s poor policy as a parent to blindly sign on to whatever injections the government dictates from on high

  So we have no pediatrician at the moment, and there is a certified letter waiting ominously for us  up at the post office from the pediatrician.  My concern is not that we won’t find another doctor, and my concern isn’t that my  son will catch meningitis. My concern at this point is that a visit from Child Protective Services comes out of all this.  Out of concern for the staff at this misguided doctor’s office, I’ve not released the name of the office, but I suspect we have not heard the last from all this.